What Military Aircraft Would You Bring Back To Service?
Which is why they were replaced as the main part of the deterrent in '68 I guess
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Been around the block
Posts: 629
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was part of the group of tankers that ferried 56 Sqn to Cyprus. We then ferried two to Bahrain where one was used by the demonstration pilot and flown to Saudi and back.
It certainly used afterburner to take off from Bahrain and I am sure that it would have had to use afterburner to get airborne on its demonstration flight.
It certainly used afterburner to take off from Bahrain and I am sure that it would have had to use afterburner to get airborne on its demonstration flight.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,763
Received 2,749 Likes
on
1,171 Posts
Back in 1971 when I was on 33 Sqn. when the Pumas started flying we were subjected to this non stop mockery from 72 Wessex Sqn. of how our Pumas would fall apart once the Army started jumping in and out. The first aircraft, XW204, arrived at the end of April and is still in service with the same squadron; nearly fifty years later.
Soldier proof. How long was the Wessex in front line service?
Soldier proof. How long was the Wessex in front line service?
True, but then they did totally rebuild them with new engines and rotors, the Wessex simply plodded on as delivered.
The Puma's 'rebuild' consisted of replacing the engines via the quick release system, the gearbox and head the same way and rebuilding the inside of the cockpit to accept the Super Puma's control systems.
The blades came with the head.
Why they didn't they install the 900 ft/min impact single wheel undercarriage of the Super Puma is something I cannot fathom.
Last edited by Fareastdriver; 8th Nov 2020 at 13:15.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,763
Received 2,749 Likes
on
1,171 Posts
Not true FarEastDriver
The RAF never operated the piston version, they operated the Gnome HC2 from day one, the conversion having been carried out prior to RAF service and the HC2 served as was throughout its career, we also operated the HC4 and latterly the HU5 as well.
As for the Puma, you also missed out a completely new digital cockpit, new autopilot system, totally rewired throughout and an increased fuel capacity. I can’t fathom out why they never just binned them and replaced with new, either Puma or Blackhawk.
After all, all that was really left was a 40 year old shell.
..
The RAF never operated the piston version, they operated the Gnome HC2 from day one, the conversion having been carried out prior to RAF service and the HC2 served as was throughout its career, we also operated the HC4 and latterly the HU5 as well.
As for the Puma, you also missed out a completely new digital cockpit, new autopilot system, totally rewired throughout and an increased fuel capacity. I can’t fathom out why they never just binned them and replaced with new, either Puma or Blackhawk.
After all, all that was really left was a 40 year old shell.
..
Last edited by NutLoose; 8th Nov 2020 at 13:50.
I'd vote for the Jet Provost T Mk 5A with a more fuel efficient engine and updated avionics.
Plus the training system which went with it - for ALL aspirant RAF pilots! Including the QFIs and aerodromes.....
Plus the training system which went with it - for ALL aspirant RAF pilots! Including the QFIs and aerodromes.....
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,763
Received 2,749 Likes
on
1,171 Posts
I’d stick a williams F44 in it, dimensions and weight about the same for a reduced fuel burn and a couple of hundred pounds more thrust.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 61
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My vote goes to the Gnat.
We have to think of small, cheap and PLENTIFUL aircraft so we can maintain a command of the skies over the UK......
With missile technology being so dominant, all you need is a delivery system loaded with missiles and the agility to out perform any opposition.
Stuff a Pegasus in and you've virtually created a small Harrier - best of both worlds, no runways, fast and nimble and jink out of the way of any incoming...
It IS a dream, innit?
We have to think of small, cheap and PLENTIFUL aircraft so we can maintain a command of the skies over the UK......
With missile technology being so dominant, all you need is a delivery system loaded with missiles and the agility to out perform any opposition.
Stuff a Pegasus in and you've virtually created a small Harrier - best of both worlds, no runways, fast and nimble and jink out of the way of any incoming...
It IS a dream, innit?
Icare9
Once again the ‘quantity vs quality’ argument raises its head. If ever it were to find a spiritual home this thread would be it.
I know I’m wasting my time but I’ll highlight a couple of points.
You’re correct that missile technology is a key factor nowadays. If (big if) you can guarantee a ‘bigger stick’ than the opposition then you are kind of correct that the delivery platform doesn’t matter so much.
The launch conditions of your missile are quite important though. The higher and faster you are at launch, the better the range of your missile.
Launching a missile from a Gnat (I’m sorry to say this but I would never be able to take that suggestion seriously, maybe because of the Hot Shots movie) would severely limit your missile range.
Secondly you mentioned having the agility to out-manoeuvre the opposition. Exactly what opposition do you imagine you could outperform in a Gnat? Even one with an engine bigger than the aeroplane itself?!
Finally you must consider what you want to do with your ‘Super Gnat’. If it is for UK defence and the missile is all you need then build a SAM system. If you want that platform to cross a border into somewhere with SAMs and fighters of it’s own then good luck finding the volunteers to go to war in Topper Harley’s finest.
Instead of wistfully remembering the days when we had thousands of aircraft and thinking how that would be great nowadays you must consider what you want to do with them.
As much as you may love Spitfires/Meteors/Hunters/Gnats they would be utterly useless in a modern conflict or defence of the UK in virtually any sensible scenario.
It’s not that those aircraft weren’t great in their day but, as we upgraded and embraced newer technologies, so did everyone else.
If we really thought the Russians were going to send an airborne armada of Mig 15s our way then maybe we would need more aircraft. I still wouldn’t want that to be Gnats though. Or Hunters. Or...
BV
I just thought that maybe I should answer the question before I go.
If you want to know which aircraft I would like to see fly again purely for sentimental reasons then it shouldn’t surprise you to know it’d be the Jaguar.
If you want to know which aircraft I would bring back for operational reasons then I’d say none of them. They have all been superseded. That’s called progress.
I know I’m wasting my time but I’ll highlight a couple of points.
You’re correct that missile technology is a key factor nowadays. If (big if) you can guarantee a ‘bigger stick’ than the opposition then you are kind of correct that the delivery platform doesn’t matter so much.
The launch conditions of your missile are quite important though. The higher and faster you are at launch, the better the range of your missile.
Launching a missile from a Gnat (I’m sorry to say this but I would never be able to take that suggestion seriously, maybe because of the Hot Shots movie) would severely limit your missile range.
Secondly you mentioned having the agility to out-manoeuvre the opposition. Exactly what opposition do you imagine you could outperform in a Gnat? Even one with an engine bigger than the aeroplane itself?!
Finally you must consider what you want to do with your ‘Super Gnat’. If it is for UK defence and the missile is all you need then build a SAM system. If you want that platform to cross a border into somewhere with SAMs and fighters of it’s own then good luck finding the volunteers to go to war in Topper Harley’s finest.
Instead of wistfully remembering the days when we had thousands of aircraft and thinking how that would be great nowadays you must consider what you want to do with them.
As much as you may love Spitfires/Meteors/Hunters/Gnats they would be utterly useless in a modern conflict or defence of the UK in virtually any sensible scenario.
It’s not that those aircraft weren’t great in their day but, as we upgraded and embraced newer technologies, so did everyone else.
If we really thought the Russians were going to send an airborne armada of Mig 15s our way then maybe we would need more aircraft. I still wouldn’t want that to be Gnats though. Or Hunters. Or...
BV
I just thought that maybe I should answer the question before I go.
If you want to know which aircraft I would like to see fly again purely for sentimental reasons then it shouldn’t surprise you to know it’d be the Jaguar.
If you want to know which aircraft I would bring back for operational reasons then I’d say none of them. They have all been superseded. That’s called progress.
Last edited by Bob Viking; 11th Nov 2020 at 03:31.
I am afraid I have to agree with you BV. Having flown Vampires and Meteors a long time age, i would not rate them highly against more modern fighters.
I'm sure I'm not alone and maybe it is just a getting older male thing - but my wife is frustrated that I'm always appalled by the cost of things.
she is always telling me "but that is what things cost these days"
My reaction is " I'm not paying it!"
$200 for a pair of shoes - I'm not paying that!
$XXX.XXXX for a house - it's not worth that - etc etc.
To a degree I can get my head round Fast Jets at over $100M a pop.
But I struggle with utility helicopters such as the new Lynx being not to far short of that.
I'd wonder if there is a economic argument to bring back something like a Turbo Beaver/ PC-6 etc to compliment the helicopters.
if you are transporting a few bods (or some odds and sods) from one field to another at around 100 Knots it would do it at a tiny fraction of the cost (buy price and operating cost)
she is always telling me "but that is what things cost these days"
My reaction is " I'm not paying it!"
$200 for a pair of shoes - I'm not paying that!
$XXX.XXXX for a house - it's not worth that - etc etc.
To a degree I can get my head round Fast Jets at over $100M a pop.
But I struggle with utility helicopters such as the new Lynx being not to far short of that.
I'd wonder if there is a economic argument to bring back something like a Turbo Beaver/ PC-6 etc to compliment the helicopters.
if you are transporting a few bods (or some odds and sods) from one field to another at around 100 Knots it would do it at a tiny fraction of the cost (buy price and operating cost)
I'm sure I'm not alone and maybe it is just a getting older male thing - but my wife is frustrated that I'm always appalled by the cost of things.
she is always telling me "but that is what things cost these days"
My reaction is " I'm not paying it!"
$200 for a pair of shoes - I'm not paying that!
$XXX.XXXX for a house - it's not worth that - etc etc.
To a degree I can get my head round Fast Jets at over $100M a pop.
But I struggle with utility helicopters such as the new Lynx being not to far short of that.
I'd wonder if there is a economic argument to bring back something like a Turbo Beaver/ PC-6 etc to compliment the helicopters.
if you are transporting a few bods (or some odds and sods) from one field to another at around 100 Knots it would do it at a tiny fraction of the cost (buy price and operating cost)
she is always telling me "but that is what things cost these days"
My reaction is " I'm not paying it!"
$200 for a pair of shoes - I'm not paying that!
$XXX.XXXX for a house - it's not worth that - etc etc.
To a degree I can get my head round Fast Jets at over $100M a pop.
But I struggle with utility helicopters such as the new Lynx being not to far short of that.
I'd wonder if there is a economic argument to bring back something like a Turbo Beaver/ PC-6 etc to compliment the helicopters.
if you are transporting a few bods (or some odds and sods) from one field to another at around 100 Knots it would do it at a tiny fraction of the cost (buy price and operating cost)
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 415 Likes
on
218 Posts
As for the Puma, you also missed out a completely new digital cockpit, new autopilot system, totally rewired throughout and an increased fuel capacity. I can’t fathom out why they never just binned them and replaced with new, either Puma or Blackhawk.
After all, all that was really left was a 40 year old shell.
After all, all that was really left was a 40 year old shell.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: en route
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, so in a light-hearted (though heart-felt!) thread, here's a serious question. Watching the annihilation of Armenian armour and ground systems by Turkish/Azeri Bayraktar UAVs in the Nagorno Karabagh war over the past couple of months, I wonder, is there an aircraft that could be used to shoot down UAVs in this kind of conflict?
I'm thinking it needs to be light and manouverable, armed with canon; low heat signature (there are plenty of MANPADS in theatre of the SAM7/10 type, not to mention more sophisticated AA and AAA systems); easy to fly, maintain and operate; service ceiling of 25-30,000 ft; cheap; STOL or short field capable; and, crucially, easily available or easily modifiable from an existing platform.
As an informed amateur it seems to me that, given the lamentable shortage of Spitfires or Mustangs, an obvious choice would be something like an Air Tractor AT-802. But how 'hot' is a PT6? Is there a way of cooling the heat signature? Or is there a market for interceptor UAVs - designed to loiter at altitude and shoot down enemy UAVs, armed with A2A missiles, perhaps?
I'm thinking it needs to be light and manouverable, armed with canon; low heat signature (there are plenty of MANPADS in theatre of the SAM7/10 type, not to mention more sophisticated AA and AAA systems); easy to fly, maintain and operate; service ceiling of 25-30,000 ft; cheap; STOL or short field capable; and, crucially, easily available or easily modifiable from an existing platform.
As an informed amateur it seems to me that, given the lamentable shortage of Spitfires or Mustangs, an obvious choice would be something like an Air Tractor AT-802. But how 'hot' is a PT6? Is there a way of cooling the heat signature? Or is there a market for interceptor UAVs - designed to loiter at altitude and shoot down enemy UAVs, armed with A2A missiles, perhaps?